cbmd wrote:Thanks for the suggestion, we don't take these things personally most of the time. However, with todays internet forum paradigm in mind, we sometimes feel its necessary to temper user expectations before they get wildly out of control. This is not to say that your suggestion falls into this category.

A good example of this is the Prophet 12's low pass filter range. We increased the overall range of the filter by an octave when compared to the Prophet 08 due to Prophet 08 customers wanting increased range out of the filter. Now we are encountering a few users who would prefer the range to be reduced on the Prophet 12 itself, while others like the increased range...you just can't please everyone all the time.

In the case of the P12 waveform discussion going on over at GS, there has been a lot of conjecture about the cause for "errant" behaviors which have not been quantified by any sort of examples/testing nor evidence of "artifacts".There is a lot of misinformation which can spread like wildfire on forums and it is sometimes in our interest to step in a clear things up.

In general, our instruments have a much larger range of parameter values available when compared to other synthesizer manufacturers. This leads to greater sonic flexibility and palette, though may reduce the "sweet spot" people often refer to when using synths.

Uh, dat'dbe me.

But, I did post audio of the waveforms and a spectral analysis. Many people more knowledgable than I acknowledged that it did indeed look and sounds a bit strange. I'm no goldenears, but I've been around the block and I've been using analog and digital synths since 82. I've played everything from Poly 800s to Synclaviers. I've spent a lot of years working in music stores as well so I've seen many things come and go over the years. I've actually heard what I was talking about in demos before I purchased one, but I just assumed it was some wavetable or one of the character functions causing the harshness. I know you don't think it exists, but saying that a fairly large group of seasoned synth users' opinion is "spreading misinformation" is... well it's misinformation.

Anyway, I'm happy with my Prophet 12. I actually really love it. I began a project taking my favorite MoPho sounds and reproducing them on the 12, and I actually feel like I'm improving the patches. I've also recommended it many places including GS, despite it's shortcomings. I've already just naturally started avoiding what I'm talking about, no real need for filter limits. It's like a sensitive tooth, you just learn to make sure the ice cream doesn't hit it. It's easy enough, but the condescending attitude that Oldgearguy and I are somehow starting some propaganda campaign, based on nothing, against the 12 is incorrect.

Oh, and btw, I just heard Marc Doty's Prophet 6 osc demo and they sound fanfentastic to me. So, I'm not out on some DSI witch hunt or something.

The global menu has so many options now and I noticed they are numbered. Would there be any way to implement use of the keypad to quick select a menu option shortcut? For instance; In global menu enter #15 on keypad and it goes to "Local Control" so you can toggle it on/off. Or enter #32 to "Dump Current Bank."

Also now that we have two delay modes, how about an on/off switch to globally turn delays on/off for the whole synth?

Hey hey, I think I asked about use of the keypad for other aspects, just when I got my P12. My understanding of the answer was, that this isn't possible or would be very difficult. Perhaps the pad is hard routed to program change or something like that. It would still be wonderful.

really enjoying the latest update. fantastically crunchy synth... yep I said it and love it for that lol.

I would love to +1 the idea of turning off the Arp note triggering so it can be used as a mod source.
I would also like an update to the filter control knobs so that I can have either A a more slewed knob for High Q slow knob filter sweeps or just a general menu option to allow for this method of operation as I know some like the "filter tuning" aspect of the low knob resolution.

in addtion I would like to see the delay amount all setting previously mentioned.

I wish it would be possible to have a seperate midi recieve & midi send channel on the P12, so I could use the P12 as a master controller for my Pro-2 .. and feed the P12 with note information from my sequencer on a different midichannel.

Hi, I've had a bit of pain with saving presets because theres no way as far as I can tell to see the name of the slot that you are overwriting. So I can't make sure that a slot I'm writing to is actually spare or has a preset in it that I want to keep.

Also when you press write but then decide not to save there's no dedicated exit button, you can press another button but it takes you to the page of that button which is a little annoying, maybe pressing any other button but it not taking you to that page would be a good way to exit without writing. A couple of times I've pressed write thinking it would exit write mode like when you press global to exit that and overwritten presets by mistake.

While I'm at it, I get a bit annoyed having to tap show all the time if I want to get to a page on the soft knobs screen without changing the value of the knob and would appreciate some way to cycle through the pages without turning a knob.

I just noticed too that when I turn local control off and then scroll through presets, all presets (factory and user) have the same name. This scared the shit out of me when it happened the first time because I thought id overwritten all the banks with one preset! it not a major issue but it cant be right, does anyone else have this same problem?

Overwriting presets: since I'm blind as a bat now, I can't tell you about names on the screen, but you can press compare to listen to the original sound from that slot.
...
Pressing show to get to a certain screen: most sections, have associated buttons. There are the four oscillator, LFO and delay buttons and the aux env buttons. The lowpass filter has the 4pole/2pole button, which isn't too bad. The remaining sections are highpass filter, VCA and polyphony, hold and portamento. To be frank, I only ever press show to use those, adjust the pitchbend wheel and occasionally for the modmatrix.
...
Yes, the supersaw would be nice. For now you can use one of the delays modulated by a slow triangular LFO to get a chorus effect, which sound quite good, when adjusted carefully.

Also in the oscillator section a setting to change the coarse tune knob from semitones to ratios would be grand, especially with the linear FM.

I totally agree, ratios would be awesome, I always wonder why synths with FM don't see this as essential.

Phase mod likle a DX7 and the ability for oscilators to self modulate would open up a world of new sounds possible with the p 12, maybe it would change it so much that it would become a lot less Prophet like but I don't give a jot. Give me supersaws and phase mod! I thought that was what we were getting with linear until I tried to make a brostep growl bass but I was like

Mantrak wrote:What about the ultimate feature request: Releasing P12 firmware as open source? Would that be too good to be true?

Every synth/drum machine that has delays in updates or numerous bugs eventually gets a "Open Source" shoutout on a forum.

Unless the manufacturer planned from the beginning to have the code open (cf. GenoQs Octopus and Roger Linn's Linnstrument) it's very difficult to have any hope of actually being able to debug, develop, test, and release updates by anyone else outside the company. (JJOS doesn't count since he was an Akai developer for many years and had access to all the tools and techniques).

If you've never looked at someone else's code (I've been writing software for a living the past 30 years), especially code that deals with embedded, realtime systems, you have no idea how complex it can be. To think that any random experienced developer would be able to add features and fix lots of bugs in a timely fashion is not realistic.

As a simple test - even though you may not own a Linnstrument, go to Roger's site, go to the github link, download the code, use the Linnstrument manual on-line and try to trace through how things are done. If you find that easy, maybe we can talk. (Yes, I have made some customizations to the Linnstrument code for my purposes, but it wasn't fast or obvious and I got some key assistance from one of the main developers).

I am aware of all that being a SW engineer myself. It depends, sometimes code can be readable and in rare cases even enjoyable

I think P12 could be terrific open platform. I also believe that the future of HW synth platforms is to provide some level of programmability beyond menus, parameters and editors. You can see right here on this forum that you can never provide "enough features". For example, now that I have unison detune, I'd like to have freely assignable poly mode with detune. Say, four voice polyphony, each voice tripled and detuned... the wishlist is endless. That cannot be solved with menus, parameters or even editors.

Mantrak wrote:I am aware of all that being a SW engineer myself. It depends, sometimes code can be readable and in rare cases even enjoyable

I think P12 could be terrific open platform. I also believe that the future of HW synth platforms is to provide some level of programmability beyond menus, parameters and editors. You can see right here on this forum that you can never provide "enough features". For example, now that I have unison detune, I'd like to have freely assignable poly mode with detune. Say, four voice polyphony, each voice tripled and detuned... the wishlist is endless. That cannot be solved with menus, parameters or even editors.

There's a constant tradeoff between available CPU cycles and functionality. At some point in time you have to start throwing away some functions to add new stuff.

FWIW, given that releases with new features have introduced bugs in existing functionality (not just in DSI land), I'd have to guess that the source is not a shining example of clean modular coding and as such you'd have to spend a lot of time regression testing even a simple change. No knock against DSI, just stating a fact that most complex coding systems grow up and change more organically than developers hope they would.

There's also the challenge of supporting 3rd party developers and then integrating any/all changes into the master code base or allowing all of them to exist in parallel. Can you imagine the support nightmare for DSI? "Hello, I have a weird bug in my P-12" "What version of the OS are you running?" "Version x.73 I got from a friend on the internet". <click>

Again - not to say it can't be done, just saying that even if the machine was priced higher to reflect that their IP was going to be given away, getting the code and environment and testing set up (and having the tools and apps necessary to recover from a bricked state) is non-trivial and most people out there would rather be using the synth to write music rather than writing code to add features to a synth. Your time isn't free and I would think as a developer you'd put a fairly high hourly price on doing any more coding outside work. I know I'd rather just sit down and play the hardware and twist some knobs and such than fire up a computer.

I'm a early P'12 buyer and the synth was largely bug free, I guess it was a huge amount of work since Pym and the others were dealing with some piece of hardware they were discovering (particulary the Sharc).

oldgearguy wrote:There's a constant tradeoff between available CPU cycles and functionality. At some point in time you have to start throwing away some functions to add new stuff.

Absolutely, and that's why the OS updates of the P-12 and the Pro-2 are likely to differ at a time because even if some coding tricks are possible, on the P-12, you have half CPU cycles available per voice compared to the Pro 2.

BobTheDog wrote:As a SW engineer do you also give away for free all the code you produce?

Well...the gravedigger ally again, who else? (Excuse me for the rude mention...but, against your open minded and friendly argument for the Mantrak POV...what else?)
FOR SURE...a lot of provisions and products in companies transactions involving Software Solutions implies the source code supply included, how not?...it only depends on the contract, kind of product and what you pay for...OBVIOUS. In this case, I know...we can debate about it (in the technical limitations as oldgearguy pointed in any case). At least, I can...maybe not you.

Maybe we can try again to discuss what is intended by each as "Flagship Synthesizer"? from the modern market POV and competition or evil comparisons? for the unknown VS design not quite well closed (only SHARC?) in advance VS "eternal ad hoc" development? modern client-focused successful bussiness strategy? in which policy of means and personnel involved against which number of products and development costs grade?...in which price range and advertising blahblah (time for Taylor Swift)? at which quality/development point for supply expected for that price and new features competitive/comparative context?...

Yeah, all we know that is time wastin.

Just in case, a couple of examples of "another way of thinking/acting/foring" options regarding compromise with the product and clients, and REAL development costs, even in other $ targets:

...which is the effective cost of the code productive hours dedicated by these companies to develop and improve the features and included items for their, otherwise, quite cheaper than P12 products we are talking about? Yeah...they would not offer their codes for free....but, let me say...they don't need it, and so, are not requested for it...differnet than AKAI, definetely,...and, Heaven or Hell forbid...DSI? I hope not, and not based on costs or $$ aspects, usually some of you only mention.

P.S: And for sure...JJOS is an exception (technically regarding the code and tools involved with MPCs...); an exeption that confirms the COMPANY POV and policies sinking...and so, their condemnation to be what they are now: underdeveloped devalued CRAP. For sure, people were open to pay him for their personal efforts and time (as well as for other manufacturers of today MPC stuff)...but, you know, out of the frying pan, into the fire, someone has to do it!!

As a former Software Engineer with Apple for 3 yrs, then Sun Microsystems for 14 yrs, I have to jump in on this. I worked for the 2 silicon valley companies that had probably the most opposite points of view with respect to sharing source code. Back in the early to mid 80's, Apple had the most proprietary, 'keep the source locked up tight' perspectives around. Sun on the other hand, was the exact opposite and it was one of their biggest strengths...Unix, Solaris, Java, Sun shared all the source in a calculated approach to increase the people writing on those platforms, which in turn would increase the end users jumping on board as well...and it worked very well for Sun...

But...

A Sun workstation or a PC/Mac running java is not a highly specialized piece of hardware like a synth. Generic platforms for running software are great candidates for shared open source, but a synth where the source is such an integral part of it's function and value...well, I also take the position on the P12 that sharing the source doesn't make sense to me.

No such thing as spare time.
No such thing as free time.
No such thing as down time.
All you got is life time.
Go.
- Henry Rollins